-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-politico-in-defending.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
But they must know why we're not sending money. I doubt anyone with any clout ever sees the comments. Just some lackey with a visor counting the money. Checks in one pile, credit cards in another and comments in the trash.
Obama's rhetoric is a fraud, and was at the time of the campaign. Hope you're learning this lesson, John!
Precisely. After all is said and done, he's given ammunition to the anti-marriage equality crowd.
I so regret my vote for him and all the money I wasted to help get him elected. Never again.
I've had it. I give up. No politician is going to follow through on his or her promises to us. They're all the same. I've voted in my last election.
They lied to get my vote.
I will no longer vote for any candidate that does not earn my vote by backing up their words with action.
Once burned.....
Their seriousness doesn't change the shape of the earth though.
wow. i wish i could say that i was suprised but i am not. the obama administration has followed a pattern of tossing your community under the bus since day one of taking office. i really hoped that he would be different. after all, he talked a really pretty talk on the campaign trail. but i guess on this he is all talk and no action. yea, change my ass.
i am so disgusted that this administration is attempting to justify DOMA. it clearly violates *at least* the equal protection clause of the constitution. for fuck's sake. any idiot who's taken conlaw 101 can see that. and to think that they threw loving in there. *omg* i am just pretty much.. aghast. and frankly, the fact that this is coming from a president whose parents couldn't even get married in some states is just unbelievable. the man preaches empathy as the number on judicial priority for him yet he doesn't seem to have an empathy for the citizens who are denied civil rights just like his parents would have been had they lived somewhere else in the US.
i am just disgusted.
I recognize that your post is many days old now so maybe my comment will get little notice, but I have a small criticism of your piece.
I'm a straight man married for over 25 years to a straight woman. Yet I too am angry at Obama for the handling of the DOMA brief. I'm angry because I see same-sex marriage as a fundamental civil rights matter.
So, when you write about what Obama did to "our community", you left me out. He did it to me too, you know. I'm one of those silly liberal types who thinks that when my neighbor's civil rights are raped by the government, the victim is all of us.
Donny McClurkin
Obama promised you nothing. And he's delivering on that promise.
last year you engaged in savage personal attacks against Hillary becuz she refused to drop out of the primaries in favor or obama, calling her "sick piece of shit", a "horrible human being", and saying "fuck you, Hillary Clinton"!
well, are ya happy now?
Mario
So yeah.
Fuck them.
Believe it or not DADT was better than what they had before. It's up to Obama to make further modifications to the law. He hasn't done it, and in fact, likely won't. Don't blame Clinton for that.
Clinton signed it. I blame the man with the pen.
personally i have a big case of deja vu here. the 92 campaign was the first i was really involved in and one thing that really got me psyched about clinton during the general election was that he co-opted gore's pro-gay platform (i was a gore voter in the primary that year). clinton talked a pretty lovely talk back then, kinda like obama did last time around. this just feels like a huge bait and switch all over again. i am simply not convinced that the iron lady would've tried to overturn the policies her husband instituted.
And now that Obama is adding a sixth Roman Catholic to our Supreme Court, we'll essentially have three new branches of government: The Executive, The Legislative and The Pope.
It has the choice to let any ruling by a lower court stand, and they could have done so. Otherwise, if you were to be believed, the DOJ would be required to filed cert with the US Supreme Court on every case it loses, which of course is absurd.
As far as the brief goes, the individuals are probably bush appointees, I don't remember Obama choosing new ones in Cali, yet. That said, the brief did go a bit overboard.
Such an exact issue happened in NY. A trial court ruled the ban on SSM to be unconsitutional under the NY constitution, and the governor refused to appeal to it.
THROW THE FAGS 'NEATH THE BUS AND WIN WIN WIN
WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN WIN
THROW THE FAGS 'NEATH THE BUS AND WIN WIN WIN
ALL THROUGH THE LAND.
Sing it Barack! Sing it Bill Clinton! Sing it faux liberals!
We're just faggots and we don't count because we are a small minority anyway. Plus who cares about fags and dykes anyway.
This is sickening.
Who are the attorneys who wrote it? What is their backgorund? John, any info on them?
The U.S. attorney for the Central District District of California IS A BUSH APPOINTEE. Same as in every other district. Its a disgrace that these Bush appointees have not been replaced.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/Assista...
They probably figure that the right of center is not fond of gays, so we get thrown under the bus. Smart politics -- as usual.
Let's say we can run another person against him in 2012 and Obama wins. Then we see everyone who voted for the other person sitting this election out, he will have a big problem on his hands and it will be entirely his own fault for using us as bargaining chips to be gambled and tossed aside at the first problem. This has to stop and we can do it if he remains obstinate and aloof to our plight.
I think Obama has let the party elders get to him, and these people are out of touch with regards to gays. They still think of us like we in the 90s -- sure they support us, so long as we are very quiet and nice and don't ask too much. And I think they still think that gays are just not accepted in 90% of America, so why go out on a limb?
==============================
Either that, or they really just don't care. They're in the White House and do not have to pretend they are going to do anything for our equal rights. They have miscalculated us and will find out soon enough when they need us again. This didn't have to go this way.
I remember the last time Democrats were fully in power and threw their base under the bus: during the Vietnam War.
LBJ destroyed and defunded his Great Society, the War on Poverty, and the space program, and alienated a large base of the Democratic Party by prolonging the Vietnam War.
Nixon lied and promised to end the war "with honor," and we got nearly 40 years of Republican rule.
But Democrat politicians apparently don't learn the lessons of history.
Voterr registration rolls indicate that those REGISTERED as Republicans or Democrats are about the same number (with a recent bump up in Democrats because of the Obama registration campaign), and combined represent roughly only half of the voting public. You have been duped if you think 80% of registered voters will ever vote Democratic.
The rants here against Republicans are funny, since the Republican blogs are WAY friendlier to gays than than many of the Democratic blogs. Since I'm registered as an Independent, I couldn't care less. But, it's interesting that so many gay people have been duped by the Democratic Party.
When politicians gush over you because you're black, gay, or anything else "different," and make a big production of supporting you in your difference, they are proving what a bunch of phony, bigoted fools they are. People who aren't bigoted or prejudiced don't care about your skin color, your (harmless) sexual orientation, or your ethnicity.
When my "progressive" friends drag me to gay movies to make me feel good about myself, and bring up gay politics around me to show me how tolerant they are, I want to hit them. It's insulting, its condescending, it's patronizing, and it's FAKE. If they really considered me their equal, they would treat me as an equal, not as a charity cause they've adopted.
Obama's support of gays is a put-on, but everything he does is a show. Has there ever been a president more intent on publicity or milking an audience? When he speaks, reading from his teleprompters, he turns his nose up, so he's looking down on everyone, and his endless bragging is beyond cute, interesting, or funny. It's absolutely disgusting.
Don't vote party, vote honor, regardless of a candidate's position on gay marriage. A good politician can be won over, if ones cause is just; an evil politician (Obama) just thinks he's right, and that the voters are dupes to be used.
And maybe it's time the gay community started re-thinking some of the causes it supports. Is it possible that some of its collective positions are the wrong ones? Here's a test: Does the cause one supports help or harm the underdog, the helpless, the defenseless, the innocent? Does the cause, if successful, make the world better or worse? Does it make one kinder or meaner, more empathetic or less so?
I did not vote for Obama or anybody else in the last election. I think there are issues far more important that gay marriage or even gay rights in general, so I have to focus on the big picture, not on my personal comfort. But, I'm glad to see that some people are finally coming out of their trances and realizing that they voted for Elmer Gantry, not Mohatma Gandhi.
Paging Rachel Maddow.
Better give John a call now and talk this out.
We need a president who actually cares about his military more than he cares about the religious right wing or a hand full of old men in the Pentagon.
DOMA is legislation. It can be overturned at a later time. You do realize that what happened at the state level in California (Prop 8) could have happened throughout the whole county had the right succeeded in railroading the Congress into passing a constitutional amendment. DOMA gave the Congress an out and it took it and it allowed you guys to live to fight another day. This particular lawsuit really has no chance of success. So you are aggrieved that he defended it as a proper exercise of legislative power. Do you think that it is not and if so, why not?
The brief could easily have made two arguments, that it does violate it, and that it doesn't violate it. Then conclude that it doesn't violate it. That way, they would have done their job in defending the case, yet giving the court a way to overturn the law.
But they didn't do that. Instead, they took a tactic of throwing everything they can to defend discrimination against gays. They even defend a state the right to ban gay marriage for any reason at all, which is way beside the point.
Of course, this could go all the way to the Supreme Court (and still could), and they could hold it consitutitonal. In which case we are NO worse off then we are now. So what's your point?
In the ambulance, we'll make sure protest music from the 60s is played. That should finish him off.
http://bit.ly/aO2eG
http://bit.ly/nm0BL
What's the surprise anymore?
I don't like this any more than you do, but I think they are a smarter white house than to do something this crass without some calculation.
It is possible that Obama is moving in a very subtle way on this issue. Doesn't make the snail's pace any more acceptable to the community, of course, but it's worth considering.
You're surprised? Thought it would never happen you or yours? Some other group's votes are more valuable than yours, so under the bus you go. Standard Obama M.O. that was plain to see before the election. 48% of us knew he could not be trusted & voted against him. Get it now?
Since 1990 between 62% and 85% of Americans (depending on which poll you go by) WANT single payer health insurance to be available in the USA. And the people of this country still do not have a national health care program. Why, because the constituents of the GOP/DEM party don't want it: i.e., the HMOs, Insurance Industry, AMA, corporate hospital conglomerates, etc. They don't want it because they fear it will cut into their easy profits. That pretty well proves that the GOP/DEMS are only concerned about their corporate sponsors. They couldn't give a hoot about "we, the people"! Vote third party next time! Don't waste your vote on the GOP/DEM party!
Never again.
Essentially the GLBT community needs to be more like a bee rather than trying to be a lion. You keep stinging the Democrats in smaller ways, but you do it fast and soon. Even if their candidate wins the election, you can make it a lot tougher for them. And if you make it clear this process is going to continue until the Democrats are genuinely active supporters of GLBT rights rather than users and pretenders, you'll get their attention much more quickly and much more assuredly.
I wish someone like John would help initiate this kind of national strategy. I'm betting it's our most viable means of grabbing and shaking the national Democratic party until they genuinely-- and productively-- respond.
The tactic would work with picking local or state races to target with donations to opponents, but might also work by doing well-placed photo-ops at public events. Does Obama really want someone wearing a rainbow flag shirt saying "Obama threw me under the bus" regularly at Democratic events?
Fine - throw me under the bus. I'll make your life very unpredictable and annoying from now on.
How are those cases anything like a DOMA challenge, where there has been NO SCOTUS decision? You're totally bullshitting people with this one. There's not an ounce of falsehood in that DOJ statement.
Sensationalistic lies to get page views. No wonder folks don't take bloggers seriously.
As to the opinions here, you could have brought something of value.
Your first points are answered all over the thread. That the brief has no "falsehood" is beside any and all points, debating whether it is or not is irrelevant. That no SCOTUS precedent is involved is also of minor relevance here. Perhaps there are better examples of DOJ not vigorously defending some odious laws and do involve SCOTUS issues - SO WHAT? Your points are not made with specific examples of why you are right, which is difficult as you have phrased your argument in the form of defending the presence of a negative which requires only one instance of positive in those "thousands" to disprove, and you fail to show of what value to the overall conclusion these minute points are. You disagree with a few examples in a larger argument and group of points and trash the whole blog. As a debater you really suck. As a troll you are a bit better if only for sheer persistence.
Too bad all that energy does not go into real debate and actual thinking.
Redefining an argument, concentrating on a few technical aspects and raising specific-sounding refutations, declaring one's self victorious, trashing the blog it's on, whining about being misunderstood / victimized. This is the Straw Troll argument.
"He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation."
Yeah, I'm sure people drummed out of the military and losing their pensions think he's on their side. Sorry, I need to try to wash off the tire tracks from the bus my husband and I, and countless others, were thrown under.
"To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."
===================================
Yes, despite being tax-payers, we can't burden the federal government by having some of our own money (i.e. - our tax dollars) trickle down to us.
In other words - "FUCK YOU, FAGS, but keep paying your taxes".
And folks think I'm the "crazy one" for advocating a tax revolt; that's rich.
So this isn't just disappointing, it's baffling. Who is he playing to? Who's he trying to win over with this? The 25%-ers aren't going to be won over no matter what he does. And OUR 25%-ers are going to be pissed.
I don't get it.
"OMG, if you snipe at Democrats, you'll end up with Republicans... and THEY'RE THE ONES WHO PUT DOMA IN PLACE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!" Did you forget that Obama is vigorously defending DOMA in court?! I mean, isn't that exactly the issue... You're saying the GOP is horrible for getting DOMA passed... but now that Obama is as ardent a supporter of DOMA (through the DOJ), why should we not criticize him?! He's just as bad... you get it now? I think Obama figures it this way: "If I want to get re-elected in 2012, I need a lot of centrist voters to vote for me. The economy may not have improved enough for people to WANT to vote for me.... so I have to prove my bona fides of being a moderate midde-of-the-road guy. And what better way to show the right-of-center voters that I cannot be pigeon-holed as a liberal?! Why, throw the gays under the bus! And besides, where are the liberals going to go?!? Are they going to vote for Sarah Palin or whoever the next right-wing GOP candidate is? No way. Even if they stay home, at least they won't be voting for the GOP candidate. They have nowhere else to go". Disgusting!
Well, I did not vote for Obama. I voted for the Green party candidate and I will do so again in 2012. Please join me!
I would really like to know who penned this - exactly who - and their career track within the DOJ. Bush moles? Obama law nerds?? And who knew and when how harsh this was. It was released on a Friday so someone knew.
The ONLY good thing about this is it will force Obama to address the issue sooner than later, and make him either have his cake or eat it, and have to apologize either way. He's been dancing with both 'sides' until just about now.
I don't understand an administration that was elected to rid the abuse of executive power, pick up and use that power as ruthlessly and / or thoughtlessly. The promotion of "good government" approach goes only so far. The Executive branch is debatably obligated to enforce all laws, but NOT obligated to defend them. Especially political ones, even ones from the opposite party. This is not 'impartiality' it's weakness and immaturity. Not to mention cowardly underhanded outrageous and historically damaging. Now we get to see how the Obama administration cleans up a mess it itself is responsible for.
I don't blame President Obama - yet, he has some time still to counteract this; but AG Holder might want to keep an eye on some of the holdovers from GWB or I think we're going to see more of this crap.
But besides being personally concerned I fear for the implications of this and other actions of his hastily assembled crisis administration - that this looks WEAK, schizophrenic and / or disingenuous. That it gives comfort to enemies by a: doing their work for them, b: seeming to be on their "side" even if that is a lie (and) c: betting caught in a lie - that either he ad supported one side or the other or both, with d: pissing off and personally deeply hurting and confusing myriads of friends and supporters. It looks like he's out of control. It looks like he's another crap politician - even if he is - he still seems like he is not and once you spend that political capital it is all gone.
I posted my initial Googling, and the actual journalists have a weekend to get the skinny(ies.) I understand the difference between the role of legislator vs executive (enforcer) and how they are so different. And that he does delegate to others most work done in his name, but he has got some 'SPLAININ to do, soon.
Another 'Race Speech' of sorts is in order - NOW - yet this time it must be accompanied with actual actions.
must be a reason or chain of reasons WHY this happened. I Googled and
commented here:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/loving-v-vir...
(here) and I am sure the people responsible will experience the glare of
public scrutiny.
But besides being personally concerned I fear for the implications of this
and other actions of his hastily assembled crisis administration - that this
looks WEAK, schizophrenic and / or disingenuous. That it gives comfort to
enemies by a: doing their work for them, b: seeming to be on their "side"
even if that is a lie (and) c: betting caught in a lie - that either he ad
supported one side or the other or both, with d: pissing off and personally
deeply hurting and confusing myriads of friends and supporters. It looks
like he's out of control. It looks like he's another crap politician - even
if he is - he still seems like he is not and once you spend that political
capital it is all gone.
I posted my initial Googling here: and the actual journalists have a weekend
to get the skinny(ies.) I understand the difference between the role of
legislator vs executive (enforcer) and how they are so different. And that
he does delegate to others most work done in his name, but he has got some
'SPLAININ to do, soon.
Another 'Race Speech' of sorts is in order - NOW - yet this time it must be
accompanied with actual actions.
Link to comment:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-li...
On the whole I have to agree with your general conclusions. My only concern
is that by labeling this horrendous piece of Republican propaganda as the
President's determined policy we are attributing to him something that is
simply not true. I will not argue that the President and AG are ultimately
responsible for the actions of this AAG, simply that they (Pres. and AG) may
have been the victims of a Bush hold-over.
And the AAG's immediate superior should immediately offer his resignation
for his sloppy handling of this brief as it shouldn't have gotten past his
desk in any way.
More kudos for the late Thursday / Friday timing of all this, yet my comment Monday will be the same as today. And I will have three days to pare the profanity from it. Most of it.
1. Obama compared gay relationships to incest. No, he didn't. And it's very telling that Americablog didn't actually come up with a quote.
2. Obama said our civil rights are "not as real" as other minorities.
Again, no direct quotes from Americablog.
Hmm...
And why be so put out about it? After all...they were born that way yes? That is, for whatever biological reason, kissing cousins are far more attracted to their own gene pool than that of anyone outside their relatives.
Why be so put out by a group whom shares space with homosexuals out on the fringe of acceptance? Shouldn't you be rallying their consenting realtionship call?
The terms 'uncle' and 'niece' bear consideration...it'd be assumptive to automatically plaster up a mental stereotype that defines the uncle as older and creepy, and the niece as younger and naive.
Last I looked, homosexuals to this day still are having to overcome the typical homophobic reaction that same sex sex and or emotional and physical devotion is the act of deviants.
imo, best John can get out of what he quoted is...'Obama doesn't like adolescents marrying either.'
Mr. Simpson is a Bushie, and a Mormon, and *very* Mormon.
I'd hate to ascribe ill will to anyone, but it can't be a bad thing for opponents of gay rights (such as many who share Mr. Simpson's religious beliefs, if not Mr. Simpson himself) to embarrass the administration like this. Especially not because the President can't interfere with ongoing litigation without getting howls of both religious discrimination against Mr. Simpson, as well as making a mockery of liberal criticism of Mr. Bush for doing the exact same thing (i.e., firing U.S. Attorneys who didn't do what the West Wing wanted them to.)
See Mr. Simpson's web site for more information about him:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.co...
This looks like the action of a rogue agent in the DOJ. I say this despite Obama's previous actions in not putting a halt to DADT enforcement immediately - I think Obama's on our side here, and this is the sort of thing that the conservatives want us to think about Obama.
Obama didn't do this - the Bushie Mormon holdover in the DOJ did.
don't hold your breath.
obama is responsible for EVERYTHING coming out of his branch of the government.
this is how he acted when in the Illinois legislature. he is a politician before anything else. he speaks pretty words, but pretty words are just puffs of air
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justic...
While the DOJ relies on case history, pointing out that states are allowed to ignore marriage between uncle and nieces valid in Italy, first cousins married in New Mexico, and adults and minors wed in Indiana, comparing same-sex marriage to incest and child-marriage sounds just like right-wing hate speech.
Even IF the DOJ's tactic is to stop federal court action, so that the same-sex marriage movement can proceed with a state-by-state strategy favored by national gay rights bigwigs, the details of the DOJ's rationale are obviously distressing to LGBTQC&SCS on the ground.
The administration's latest foray into the fray seems to tell gay people to go to hell, the same way James Dobson and Pat Robertson do.
Don't get me wrong. I have higher priorities than gay-assimilation though breeder institutions like marriage and the military. Universal healthcare will better-serve both short and long-term interests of same-sex couples and gay people in general while the obvious momentum for same-sex marriage grows, so Obama's stand on same-sex marriage, whatever it is...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Oba...
...will never be a showstopper for me.
Universal healthcare, now, is more important than ANYBODY's marriage.
This is disgusting. I've grown accustomed to Republicans leaders like Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich comparing my consentual relationship with pedophelia and incest. I expect more from a democrat that I supported.
In the case of ACLU et al., v. Norman Y. Mineta, the acting Solicitor General sent a letter to Congress noting that he refused to *appeal* a ruling of unconstitutionality by the District Court, after the DOJ lost. That's a different scenario than refusing to defend the suit in the first place.
The link you provided for Dickerson v. United States is a brief for a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. That's not nearly the same thing as refusing to defend.
And finally, the case of INS v. Chadha was a separation of power cases, with the executive branch pitted against the legislative branch. Again, clearly not the same situation.
Note, I am not disagreeing with your conclusion, because I haven't seen a compelling legal argument for one side or the other. But I would think some sort of journalistic or legal integrity would compel you to get some better sources than what you've got.
You are inferring that same-sex/incest similarity has been made. If the quote is "in general", doesn't the DOJ mean ALL laws? It doesn't seem like the DOJ is drawing that analogy; it seems like you are. I HATE THAT ANALOGY AND YOU JUST PERPETUATED IT.
I'm not a lawyer but you are, so congratulations. You know about the law and you argue well; I get it. But here's the thing, being devisive doesn't help a cause that really needs unity. You seem pretty smart, the cause could use your help more than your criticism. In case you include a "criticism is help" argument, think about spending your timie volunteering through community outreach programs instead of bitching through a blog.
This blog IS community outreach. If you have a problem with blogs and bitching, what are you doing bitching on a blog?
I've served my country with honor, own and pay taxes on 2 homes, never been in trouble in my life. My partner can here legally, is educated, speaks 4 languages. Benefits? Marraige? Rights? Fuck, all we just want to be able to stay together - that is all.
I never thought I'd get to the point where I was just sick and tired and approaching (dare I say) hatred of this country....never. (shaking head)
Think about it like this. Would you still have a trial if the prosecutor wasn't prosecuting?
In any case, Sandra Day O'Connor said it best when she said ""In Romer v. Evans, we refused to sanction a law that singled out homosexuals 'for disfavored legal status.' The same is true here. The Equal Protection Clause ' "neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." ' (Plessy v. Ferguson, Harlan dissent)." in Lawrence v. Texas
Unfortunately, too many people, you included, fell for this guy's pathetic act. Remember, this guy is a Chicago Machine Politician with a predictable habit of knifing people in the back once he's gotten what he needs out of you.
What in the hell did you expect?
or "Yes we still can! (as long as you're still straight)"
I am writing him off completely and will support anyone else in 2012. Anyone else. Unless there is a sea change here.
But I doubt there will be
I do know what the next step is. A march on Washington. That is if glbt civil rights leaders can pull themselves away from their cocktail parties.
It is time to get loud.
It's getting ridiculous that everyone wants EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW!
yes, make your noise, and yes, I'll make the noise with you, but we also need Healthcare! We also want War Criminals to be Tried and Convicted! We also want - We also want - we also want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Geez, I'm so tired of hearing, "That's it, I voted for him and he's let me down."
What a bunch of Whiny, Impatient, Impractical, Idiotic statements!
In this high tech world where we can have so much handed to us in a Nano Second, we've managed to cripple ourselves by becoming IMPATIENT FOOLS!!!!
Take a breath people and realize everything will come to you!!
Just not right this second!!
When you come up with one, then you can tell me to shut up.
Until then, stuff it. And take your damned exclamation points with you.
As far as I am concerned, you are no better than one of those people who would have told blacks to not rock the boat.
It is so easy to judge others from that lofty vantage point of yours, isn't it?
They upheld the law. The Law sucks and it needs to change.
Shut up and you stuff it in your impatient whiny pie hole.
You have NO CLUE what discrimination those in the glbt community face. I have Latina and Latino gay friends, who actually have it much worse, because of the homophobic nature of Latin American cultures.
You really make me sick.
And what about the insanity of continuing to expel gays from the military, EVEN when the majority of Conservatives feel it is wrong to do so?? Sorry, it doesn't fly.
I get your message though...go sit in the back of the bus and be quiet while the boss takes care of more important issues.
Thanks for playing.
Let me ask this...what do gay people get for their tax dollars? And not just traditional Federal and state taxes. What about gay people who pay property taxes that fund the school systems? Especially considering the vast majority of gay people do not have any benefit from the money they pour into the system.
I think Melissa Etheridge is on to something.
'He has pulled off a bait and switch deception bigger than any I have seen. Once you have been deceived by a slick talking, charismatic con man, you become more skeptical in life.'
You said it. I stopped supporting Obama when he oulled his first 18 on the FISA amndement, after having claimed he would filibuster it. What did he do? Voted for cloture and then voted for it.
Ever since it's the same outcome on every single issue. If he makes a promise, expect precisely the opposite.
DOMA is a law on the books. Because it it a law, the DOJ is responsible for defending it (whether you, President Obama, or I agree with the law or not).
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/12/741817/...
Good grief. All this hysteria. If you don't like the law, then start yelling at Congress and tell them you want it repealed. Don't blame President Obama or the DOJ for doing what they have taken an oath to do ... uphold the laws of the land.
yes, make your noise, and yes, I'll make the noise with you, but we also need Healthcare! We also want War Criminals to be Tried and Convicted! We also want - We also want - we also want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Geez, I'm so tired of hearing, "That's it, I voted for him and he's let me down."
What a bunch of Whiny, Impatient, Impractical, Idiotic statements!
In this high tech world where we can have so much handed to us in a Nano Second, we've managed to cripple ourselves by becoming IMPATIENT FOOLS!!!!
Take a breath people and realize everything will come to you!!
Just not right this second!!
Who the F gives a d*mn about what you are tired of hearing?
When you find yourself lacking in civil rights protections for you and your partner, then you can spout your holier-than-thou crap.
He acts as though he's still campaigning.
Does he talk about the unemployment rate? No. The 350,000 foreclosure notices last month? No.
He wants applause and attention. he actually does NO work.
Nice, really nice how you insult me and compare me to someone that makes me want to vomit.
Take your hate somewhere else!!!!
I'm just pointing out that you're being impossible by wanting everything, RIGHT THIS SECOND!!
Gee, too bad he couldn't have waited just a little longer to die so his surviving partner wouldn't have been raped of what was rightfully his. Can you even imagine what that must have been like?
Do you people who have the audacity to accuse us of being 'whiny' have any clue that this might have extremely serious implications for others, RIGHT NOW.
You chose to come on here and pick a fight over an issue that doesn't even involve you.
What, we were supposed to roll over when you told us, in effect, to shut up?
Go ahead, open pandora's box. You have no clue about the anger you are unleashing.
You are NOT on our side. We want NOTHING to do with you.
I am so sick and tired of selfish straight people who have civil rights telling me to wait for mine.
"The courts have followed this principle, moreover, in relation to the validity of marriages performed in other States. Both the First and Second Restatements of Conflict of Laws recognize that State courts may refuse to give effect to a marriage, or to certain incidents of a marriage, that contravene the forum State's policy. See Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws § 134; Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 284.5 And the courts have widely held that certain marriages performed elsewhere need not be given effect, because they conflicted with the public policy of the forum. See, e.g., Catalano v. Catalano, 170 A.2d 726, 728-29 (Conn. 1961) (marriage of uncle to niece, "though valid in Italy under its laws, was not valid in Connecticut because it contravened the public policy of th[at] state"); Wilkins v. Zelichowski, 140 A.2d 65, 67-68 (N.J. 1958) (marriage of 16-year-old female held invalid in New Jersey, regardless of validity in Indiana where performed, in light of N.J. policy reflected in statute permitting adult female to secure annulment of her underage marriage); In re Mortenson's Estate, 316 P.2d 1106 (Ariz. 1957) (marriage of first cousins held invalid in Arizona, though lawfully performed in New Mexico, given Arizona policy reflected in statute declaring such marriages "prohibited and void")."
As a career journalist, I must say this was a very poorly written and confusing piece. While I wholly sympathize with the sentiments expressed in the article, I would suggest that the lawyer who wrote it stick to his day job--lawyering-- and leave the writing to someone who can write plain English.
Your insults are meant to deride and speak volumes on the fact that you have a comprehension problem. He's referring to how all of them were able to do something for a law they did not LIKE. Obama makes excuses.
Maybe you should find another career. If you can't comprehend that, what kind of shitty articles would you be writing. I mean, please.
Sigh. Another breeder with opinions about gays. NEXT
Why don't you just try and shut us up.
Fiscal Irresponsibility .... check
Gitmo and torture ... check
Loving, long term same sex relationships = incest ... check
No effort to end our involvement in two pointless civil wars .. check
Bushisms .... ding ding ding ... the only thing missing after the village idiot from Texas left.
the list goes on and on.
Obama deserves every progressive's disdain, a primary challenge in 2012, and a general election defeat. All the Repugs have to do is nominate someone who is mildly socially progressive, is mildly fiscally responsible, and they've got a winner.
With respect to the various claims drawn from the DOJ memorandum and attributed to Obama, let me first say that John's selective quotations out of context are worthy of Limbaugh and Hannity. The statements quoted are made in the context of a complicated legal argument. I've read the DOJ memorandum, and much of the language is irrelevant, insulting, unworthy of a good lawyer, and, I believe, contrary to Obama's views.I blame the drafting lawyer and his supervising attorney for the problems of this memorandum. Nevertheless, in the midst of this unrelevant and insulting language are serious legal arguments. To the extent that these arguments are solid, the appropriate response is political not legal. John and his fellow lawyer display a sloppiness of analysis that I find troubling even if in a good cause. It's one thing to express frustration, it's another thing to claim that it's grounded in sound legal analysis.
Something tells me that the White House did not sanction that particular brief filed by DOJ. I think that the Administration did sanction the continuation of the anti-gay policy for the short-term, but not the ideological tone or language, which is recycled garbage from the past 15 years.
In sum, I don't condone Obama's silence and current behavior on gay rights, and I think he is being outflanked and embarrassed by the right on gay rights. But I also think Obama's groundbreaking moment on gay rights will come soon. Doubters should consider who Obama picked to be Solicitor General, the person who will ultimately be called upon to argue DOJ's position in the Supreme Court in a gay marriage case: Elena Kagan. Here's an excerpt about Kagan from a Harvard website:
"Elena Kagan is the former dean of Harvard Law School and was recently confirmed as Solicitor General. She is the first woman to hold either of those roles. Kagan also has a keen awareness of the difficulties women face in the legal profession. She has addressed these head on, expressing concern at the gap between female law students and attorneys’ ambition and that of their male counterparts. “Women lawyers are not assuming leadership roles in proportion to their numbers,” she lamented in a 2005 lecture. “And that is troubling not only for the women whose aspirations are being frustrated, but also for the society that is losing their talents.”
Kagan has also done some notable work on LGBT rights litigation. Her most significant work is on the Solomon Amendment, legislation that withholds federal funds from colleges and universities when they ban military recruiters because the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy conflicts with many universities’ antidiscrimination policies. As dean, Kagan supported a lawsuit intended to overturn the legislation so military recruiters might be banned from the grounds of schools like Harvard. When a federal appeals court ruled the Pentagon could not withhold funds, she banned the military from Harvard’s campus once again. The case was challenged in the Supreme Court, which ruled the military could indeed require schools to allow recruiters if they wanted to receive federal money. Kagan, though she allowed the military back, simultaneously urged students to demonstrate against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
Throughout the controversy, Kagan maintained contact with Harvard Law School’s LGBT community. She attended a meeting of the student group Lambda and spoke with its leaders. Kagan has shown her commitment to advocating for LGBT rights, and it seems clear that Kagan’s experience battling Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on campus demonstrates she understands the needs of Harvard Law’s gay and lesbian community."
So what kind of LGBT supporter is Obama? We have yet to find out. True, he doesn't look that good right now. Time is ticking. But we'll know for sure in less than a year.
Cheney is more sympathetic to your cause than Obama. Does this suggest something to you?
I am sure, given the option, Mr. Cheney would like to see someone in the Supreme Court who would codify anti-gay discrimination.
I, for one, have had enough!
And that silly hate campaign against Miss California sure seems silly now, doesn't it?
As bad as this is, yeah...voting for McCain...self-loathing.
Sorry.
A little late for your public displays of self-righteous indignation.
Yeah, .... lemme know how that works out for ya.
(snicker)
Wow ...
I am not convinced that Hillary would be doing it any differently.
If you want to condemn Bill Clinton, his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act which was passed by the Republican-led Congress during Clinton's second term is a much more effective condemnation of Bill Clinton. President Clinton signed the bill during the night. It was during his second term so he did not have to worry about re-election. Yet Bill Clinton signed the extremely anti-gay DoMA into law.
DOMA was signed into law in September of 1996, at the end of Clinton's FIRST term, right BEFORE his second election. He had not yet been re-elected. One purpose of DOMA was to force Clinton into a corner; the Republicans knew they would have a victory no matter what. Either Clinton signed DOMA and they struck a blow against gay marriage, or he didn't sign DOMA, the Repugs campaigned against him as the "fag-loving president who wants to destroy marriage" (bearing in mind that by the 1996 election he was posturing as a moderate), and the Republicans took the 1996 presidential election. Clinton had a choice, and he chose reelection.
Unlike 1993, there's now a strong Dem majority in Congress, a large majority of the public supports its repeal, and Obama would not pay the price Clinton did for trying to get the ban repealed. There's no reason not to repeal it.
BTW - You DO realize Bill and Hillary are two separate people, right?
As for DADT, there is NO reason to not repeal it. Our allies integrate gays into their armed forces, and even Conservatives support it in polls. Yet, the President has allowed more lives to be ruined by expulsion from the military.
Disgraceful.
This is all part of Rahm Emmanuel's plan to portray Obama as a centrist.
By trampling on the backs of gay Americans.
Finally, if President Obama cannot get most of his agenda enacted in this political climate, he is impotent. Why is it that the GOP can always push through an extreme right-wing agenda when they are in power, but Democrats cannot reveal their progressive side?
Doesn't Obama have more Republicans than Progressives in his Cabinet?
Enough, already with the pandering.
"@hildeborg: "What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you." Nietzsche. Prfct quote 4 Obama defending DOMA"
Nietsche, "What upsets me is not that you lied to me, but that from now on I can no longer believe you."
I NO LONGER BELIEVE IN OBAMA!
Talk is cheap.
We're all aware that Obama feels that we are a "nation of laws," but his administration certainly seems quite selective in their application of this meme.
http://havegonedc.blogspot.com/2009/06/equality...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The term "Posterity" as used in the Preamble means (1) Future generations,(2) All of a person's descendants, or (3) A group consisting of those descended directly from the same parents (parents of the opposite sex of course).
Can two gay men or two lebian women ensure Posterity mentioned in the Preamble? Answer is resounding 'no', for they (married or not) cannot produce children as descendants.
In essence, the effect from the behavior of being gay men or lebian women is a contrbuting factor to a dying people.
Needless to say, President Obama, DOJ, and Congress have the mandatory duty to protect "LIFE" under the United States Constitution.
As the Supreme Court stated in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): "Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival."
Which, btw, has NOTHING to do with the subject at hand.
A/n: I guess "I told you all to vote for Hillary in the Primary" would do me very little good . . .
believe how naive most are, believing him
having 'real' power whatsoever.the gay
agenda was another empty promise we fell
for. Bush is war criminal, and only a more
obvious puppet. wake up!
The DOJ generally does defend the statutory laws. If you are a lawyer then you'd know this is true.
Obama has promised to support a statute that would repeal DOMA. But he is not a Senator and has not vote on that. He serves in the Executive and, as you know as a lawyer, the job of the DOJ is generally to defend the statutory laws.
No lie in that.
You made a strawman when you said that this statement meant that the DOJ had no choice. But the statement strongly suggested that Obama had made a choice.
Now, maybe that suggested to your senisibilities that there was a lie, but an "outright lie"? Based on a strawman of your own making?
You may be too close to the issue and so your overly emotional reaction may have gotten the better of your lawyerly intellect. Understandable, given that you clearly express a sense of betrayal by a President who, as a presidential candidate, create quite a different impression when speaking to "the community". Of course, when he spoke to the country he did say that he believed marriage to be between a man and a woman. Obama plays games with people's sensibilities all the time.
You are catastrophizing. You also misrepresented it as a religious thing.
The motion listed solid precedent for the constitutionality of a state to not recognize a putative marriage that stood in explicit contradiction of that state's public policy.
In each of the cited incest cases (a cousin marriage and an uncle-niece marriage) the two persons were consenting adults. In the case of the underaged marriage, the two persons had given their express consent and met the local eligibility criteria in every other way.
But mutual consent was not a trump card because the host state's public policy expressly said that such relationships were not recognized as marriages and were not valid as marriages.
These are valid precedents. Perhaps you would argue that these precedents were decided wronglyl. That these cases of incest and underaged marriages ought to be now valid because adult consent trumps public policy today. That is, public policy of the host state does not over-ride mutual consent.
If so, then, the trump card of consent is one which you ought to relish seeing argued and decided in the DOMA case. If decided in favor, then cousin marriages, uncle-niece marriages, and underaged marriages would all enjoy marriage equality as per your remark (editted slightly to reflect a positive assertion):
"the entire basis of our civil rights movement [says] that our [i.e. consenting persons] civil rights are [...] akin, are [...] worth, [and are] as real, as the civil rights of blacks and other minorities."
* * *
This particular lawsuit against DOMA would not have arisen if not for the error of the CA Supreme Court when it refused to stay its order for issuing licenses to same-sex couples until after the vote on Propositon 8 had been decided at the ballot box.
If that vote had gone against the marriage amendment, then, the issuing of licenses would have gone ahead anyway. If the vote went the other way, as it did, the interim "gay marriages" would not have occured.
Here we have one error by a court -- which decided on the basis of sexual orientation discrimination where the marriage law did not include sexual orientation as a criterion for ineligibility or for eligibility. And that makes the federal case very much weaker because, as the DOJ motion notes, there is no supremacy asserted of one sex over the other. DOMA does not use sexual orientation as a requirement.
When it comes to the incest cases, it is clear that even within the United States some related people can and do marry, but not all related people are eligible everywhere.
When it comes to age requirements, the lines are drawn differently from place to place and there is no uniformity.
DOMA does not bring any of that into question, but the plaintiff's lawyers are introducing arguments that will bring all of that into question.
The plaintiff's arguments appear to demand a single set of eligibility criteria for marriages throughout the nation. But the spirit and the intent of DOMA is that marriage be regulated at the state level as per the traditional approach. It is this approach that has prevented the launch of a federal marriage amendment. But this lawsuit seems to put all of that at stake as well.
Supporters of SSM might hope for that the lawsuit is rejected for lack of standing rather than for lack of a winning legal argument.
Half the problem is use of the word "marriage", and I can see the point. Marriage is a religious concept. The religions that use it defined it as being a union for the upbringing of children by a man and a woman. To say to them "gay marriage" is equivalent to saying "catholic bar-mitzvah" to a Jew.
So change the words, but not the rights and responsibilities it entails. This has worked very well in the UK. In fact I think, and many have argued, we should extend it to any couple who live together, including life-long platonic friends, relatives and couples who for some reason (my be because of its religious tone) don't want marriage.
Only if the facts on the ground stay the same.
Note that this isn't the first time that the President has said the same thing.
A letter from Obama to Lt. Sandy Tsao was released in May, which said:
"Thanks for your wonderful and thoughtful letter. It is because of outstanding Americans like you that I committed to changing our current policy. Although it will take some time to complete, partly because it needs congressional action, I intend to fulfill my commitment,
Barack Obama
The key point? That it will take time, and action from Congress.
It's an issue that Democrats, frankly, could take significant heat on, in conservative states where they are most vulnerable. One of the biggest problems is that a thousand flag and general officers, including 50 four star generals, sent the president a letter opposing it. This obviously would tend to make members of Congress worry about supporting it... not necessarily because they feel it would actually be damaging to the country, but because it would be damaging to their political future, and that of Democrats in their state.
Basically, Obama is trying to use his full force on issues only to a limited degree, even though he could strong arm them.
Reasons for this:
1> He wants Republican and bluedog Dem. votes on healthcare, ideally enough for a public aspect to the program. That, frankly, is where the Republicans are trying to draw a line in the sand. There are also blue dog Dems, such as Evan Bayh, who are on the fence about public healthcare, because of their own conservative constituencies.
2> He wants to maintain, if not expand, the level of support he has in the House and Senate in the next election, so that Democrats can keep making change and avoid what happened to the Democrats just two years after Clinton became president. Unfortunately, many more Democrats are up for re-election in 2010 than Republicans. That means that the Democrats must be seen as balanced and deliberate in how they approach legislation, rather than ramming everything through over the howls of the Republicans. If Obama and the Democrats come off as reasonable, then the Republicans come off as petty, vindictive obstructionists. That's not an unintentional thing. It's part of their plan on how they stay in power so that they have the time to fully enact the President's agenda, which will take years, and establish a legacy for them, so that they'll stay part of the government, even when the Republicans gain power again in the distant future. It's one thing to ram through partisan legislation, only to have the Republicans take control of Congress in the next election, and quite another to leave a lasting legacy, such as Social Security or guaranteed access to health care, that changes the nation for the better and puts it on a more progressive course.
What it comes down to is that we need to contact Congress and urge them to start open public hearings on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", so that a strong case can be made to the public. We need to shift public opinion a bit more, and accept the fact that this issue is going to be one where we try to change minds and minimize the political fallout for the Democrats, rather than having them ram the legislation through.
Democratic politicians need to be able to seem reasonable, fair, and on the right side of history on this issue. That's something we can and should all help with. But it's important to realize that no prior U.S. President has ever really supported signing off on gays in the military... even Clinton.
Obama has said he supports it and will do it, but he insists on it being done on his terms, through legislation in Congress.
We shouldn't want to rush this through, even though we are on the right side of the issue. We need to do the work, build up support, and make it politically affordable for conservative democrats by making the case first. Only then can we hold the president to that promise.
1. Obama Admin did not falsely claim anything. The DOJ does generally defend the laws it has on it's books. That's not a lie, and of course they would defend their own laws. America Blog sees a statement acknowledging a general defense of its own laws as the DOJ making a hard claim that it MUST always defend its laws. Then calling the hard claim a lie. That's what we call a strawman.
2. The defense did not compare incest to homosexuality. It did not say "Because homosexuality is like incest...lets use cases that include incest for precedents". It used cases that were brought to court that used DOMA framework somewhere in the ruling or arguments...i.e. State outlines for classifying marriage don't have to be recognized by other states or the federal government. The specific marriage cases referenced in these documents were 2 cousins, a 17 year old and adult, and a niece and uncle (not too sure about that last one). All of those marriages are OK in some states. The extent that the "incest" was used in the argument was simply rule on a precedent of marriages that are considered out of the ordinary across state lines. To imply that homosexuality was likened to incest, morally, by the DOJ in these briefs is DISINGENUOUS.
He wants us to wait for the democrats to do something about DOMA? The democrats have no back bone and could care less about us except when they need our money and when it is time for asking for our votes. What have they done lately?
And why are civil unions not enough? Don't gays just want the benefits of marriage? Anyone can have a "ceremony" that is marriage, it's the benefits gays want. Right?
I am hoping that the government's brief does not come with the president's knowing imprimatur or with the Attorney General's. Perhaps this was under the radar.
You have one thing to whine and cry about, Obama as President has numerous problems that have some priorities of individual agendas. This is a good President and will, as time allows, get all issues addressed. Why do you think your agenda is more important than those that affect the majority?
Generally, gaining rights happens in several stages; there is the planning and the polite conversation. And then there are more dramatic things, like marches and vigils, strikes and the like. Sometimes even riots. By themselves these events do nothing, and they often make people unhappy. But they don't set the cause back.
We really can't let ourselves think, "If we don't behave, they'll -never- give us our rights!" Because we should have them already, and as we've already seen, if we don't demand them, we won't get them.
And as for me, I pay my government to protect me. My civil rights are not up to date, so since I can't cash in my policy and start somewhere else, I'm going to argue about it.
Now who's stupid?
I think it was easy for them because there is no such thing as a FEDERAL MARRIAGE OR DRIVER'S LICENSE.
Now get back to work. Those shelves aren't going to stock themselves.
And last I checked, Bush smoked pot when he was in college.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Who is 'their Creator'?
"I'd really rather you didn't use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others."
Which means my creator doesn't have a problem with gay marriage. Sorry if yours does.
Personally, I think that's who Jefferson was talking about when he wrote about the "Creator". Evidence:
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, 30 July, 1816
So, that leaves him being Jewish, Muslim or a Pastafarian. I think it's pretty obvious he believed in the god with the noodlly appendage.
I agree with..."We are losing our identity and all our values are flushing down the toilet." The absolute hate of your posts prove this.
You ask what God would say. God would say that he doesn't make mistakes. He made gay people and wants them to be treated with love. God is love.
I fully support Gay marriage, the over-turning of DOMA and the repeal of DADT.
I am quite surprised by the amount of hate in a country that supposed to be 80% Christian. Where is the trust and faith in God? God is love.
I don't feel my marriage with my wife is in any danger because of gay marriage. How could it be?
It's a choice, and a sick one.
Go somewhere and get some valid information before disgorging your fact-free bilge on a public forum.
Gay love is NOT related to pedophilia at all....NOT AT ALL. Gay love is between two consenting adults. Pedophilia is a horrible crime which involves children who are unable to consent.
Love is never sick. Love doesn't need to be normalized.
Homosexual conduct, as you callit, is neither a perversity nor is it a learned behaviour. Even Dr Warren Thockmorton agrees .
Your diatribe reeks of similiar sentiments expressed towards Jews in post-Weimar Germany
We don't get that.
In what way is that "u got what u asked for"???
"The constitutional propriety of Congress's decision to decline to extend federal benefits immediately to newly recognized types of marriages is bolstered by Congress's articulated interest in preserving the scarce resources of both the federal and State governments"
"To deny federal recognition to same-sex marriages will thus preserve scarce government resources, surely a legitimate government purpose."
===================================
Yes. Despite being tax-payering Americans, we can't burden the Federal Government by having our own money (i.e. - our own tax dollars) trickle down to us.
In other words - "F*CK YOU, F*GS, but keep paying your taxes".
...and folks think I'm the "crazy one" for advocating a Tax Revolt; that's rich. I'll never pay taxes again in this country; the bigots and haters against Marriage Equality will be paying my taxes from now on.
YES - some gays are so fed up we're willing to bear arms and tell the I.R.S. don't even TRY to tax us without equality in this century.
Don't just blame religion, although it's a great way to remind people of the "good ol days" when people just didn't talk about icky things like families that were different. If there isn't going to be a court decision on a human rights basis (like here in Canada) you have a long campaign of education ahead. To get our congregation to talk about whether or not to perform equal marriage was like pulling dentures, as most were over 70, and favoured "don't ask, don't tell". A lot of people are not closed-minded, just have never thought about marriage as a civil right, or don't know that a child grows up just as well with 2 moms or dads, and it's happening now, just not with the perks of marriage.
The campaign might not be as long as it looks, but I wish you peace, and godspeed,
Sandra
but, there were so many who jumped on the Hopey-Changey bandwagon.... so many who believed in what he said.
and now we're just suckers taken in by a third rate Carny political hack.
Obama will NEVER let the gays have the rights they want.
Obama is bisexual, according to Larry Sinclair (read his new book).
And because Obama is bisexual, he will NEVER support anything to do with gays.
He has to keep his secret and therefore he will NEVER get close to the gay community.
How does it feel to have been used? Are you lovin it?
Looks like to me you weren't too bright. Larry said it all along.
You're never going to get a traditional marriage amendment that suits you.
You couldn't get it in CA - Prop 8, and you're not going to get it elsewhere, because the instinctual nature of human beings is to procreate and two (2) male or females of a species can not do that. It's called the survival of the species instinct.
Were it up to you gays, our civilization would go extinct the way of dinosaurs.
The best you can hope to do, is get civil unions legal to protect all your rights as loving partners.
In order to do that though, you are going to have to support conservatives/republicans that support civil unions.
As the blacks know, democrats ultimately don't care about them, they only care about their vote. To change this dynamic, you gays (and the blacks) are going to have to STOP throwing your vote away!!!
RWS says so, too.
http://rightwingsparkle.blogspot.com/2009/06/ha...
This should ultimately be decided by the states, wherein a better solution could be found when it's tried before fifty (50) different legislatures, upon which the best plan would win the day.
To study up on this, you should read Manly's creed for Republicans:
Creed #10 (several paragraphs down) http://www.manlyrash.com/blog/repost-creed-for-...
Quote:
The same applies to gay marriage. If the people of a state decide through their legislators they want to legalize the marriage of gay people, that’s their business. Does this mean the Republican Party supports gay marriage? Not at all. It means the Republican Party upholds the Constitution and the Constitution is silent with regard to the marriage of two men or two women. Period. It also means, however, that states who do not recognize gay marriage may not be compelled to do so as this would impinge on their sovereignty. End quote.
More on this at Manly's (paragraph at bottom): http://www.manlyrash.com/blog/a-gay-time-in-the...
To understand how your continued militant insistence on a issue that is against nature's survival-of-the-species instinct, read this:
http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=11&sid=173635
Especially read the comments, WHICH PROVES THAT YOU ARE fighting the wrong battle!!
If you fight this the correct way, which is not what you have been doing, you can at least get equal rights protection as it pertains to a loving partner.
Then I found out that it was not mandatory